@WaityKatie I completely agree! Tipping should be a reward for exceptional service. I don't want to feel guilty for not tipping if i get horrible service because i'm depriving the server of minimum wage. Also this way, there might be more incentive to not split tips and let good tips go to exceptional workers.
While your post had some good advice about grad school, it started off INCREDIBLY judgmental. In fact it sounds like your friend was following your advice exactly. He knew exactly what he wanted from law school: to network before starting a career that doesn't leave a lot of time for that for the first 10 years. In fact, you could argue that you Masters in English was a complete waste of time and money by your own grad school recommendation.
@stuffisthings Why don't they deserve any empathy? Because their money is being taken by the government and not the banks? There is an entire article a few up about how horrible it is that people are not able to pay back their mortgages. These people can't buy a house either. What's the differences? If you try to say that its because government money goes exclusively to public good while banks go to corporate greed you have a horrible misinterpretation of government corruption and systemic inadequacies and the advantage of having a bank that can make an investment (and the subsequent economic growth that can cause).
@Mike Dang Hi Mike, If I was this couple, I'm sure I would read that statement as "Yes, your situations sucks, but it's your fault" which comes off as self-righteous more than empathetic. Additionally looking for tax loopholes is a horrible way to alleviate this burden. While you save money, you sacrifice significant amounts of time, which is at a premium given the hours they work, and probably significantly increase their stress. Creating tax loopholes and tax exemptions really only benefits those in positions that can afford to outsource this to others and hurts those who most need to find them.
@josiahg One of the main reasons for the cost differences is that there is no competition for Healthcare because its an employee benefit. When was the last time someone saw a healthcare insurance commercial? But i'm sure everyone has seen automotive insurance commercials, since car insurance is bought at the consumers discretion, not their employers. Insurance agencies aren't the ones making the outrageous profits off the healthcare systems, hospitals and medical device providers are. Hospitals can set their prices at whatever rate they want and insurance agencies don't fight because they can just raise their rates to cover the extra costs. Since the majority of Americans receive healthcare subsidized by employment (due to federal mandate), businesses, not consumers pay for rising medical costs. The best way to fix this is not offering universal healthcare...yet. We need to decrease medical costs first. Removing healthcare as an employment benefit is the first step. This would increase competition among firms to lower their rates and force hospitals to practice more discretion with setting prices. Because there will be significant windfall as consumers have to pay significantly higher prices initially, there needs to be some government subsidized options to alleviate the financial pressure at least initially. Once prices have dropped, I have no doubt Universal Healthcare would be able to keep them low. Since the cost is to the government (the insurer) they have an incentive to negotiate with Hospitals to keep prices low, and if everyone has Universal Healthcare, hospitals that aren't covered by it would have no business. Medicare currently has some of the lowest costs due to the fact that it has such a large base of consumers who tend to be sick or dying (i.e. the hospital's CFO's dream clients).
I'm confused. They are complaining that they are paying too much in taxes and you are criticizing them for thinking that. But your advice is to have them put more money in a 401K so they don't need to pay taxes on their income?
How is this union-busting? There is literally no benefit to the owners to close the company, except not fall into deeper debt. Additionally, the largest debt Hostess held was to the union members pensions, so any profits from the sales of its assets is going to go to the union workers anyways. There is no "bottom-line" when the Hostess owners will probably come out of this liquidation with a loss. She literally made no point about how this was union busting except that Hostess claimed it couldn't pay the workers high wages so it shut down. Apparently she thinks once you declare bankruptcy, you have nothing to lose? That's not really how it works. I don't follow any of it.